[odc-discuss] (no subject)

Fri Mar 27 20:43:03 UTC 2015

Looks like an bug in ODC-By-1.0 to me.

Mildly surprised nobody ever noticed before. Presumption that the text
matches the obvious intent and pattern established by previous licenses
must've made the bug hard to see.

Mike

On 03/27/2015 01:35 PM, Andrew Rens wrote:
> Francis you are far from obtuse - my email was unintentionally misleading.
> 
> My apologies, I cut and paste from another email badly.
> 
> What I wanted to ask was this:
> 
> The legal text ofODC-By 1.0
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/
> 
> reads:
> 
> "4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative
> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must:
> 
> a. Do so only under the terms of this License".
> 
> In other words users of By can only use By downstream. This is unlike CC
> By in which users can use other licences downstream.
> 
> The legal text of the OBdL 1.0
> 
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
> 
> reads
> 
> 4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative
> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must:
> 
>  a. Do so only under the terms of this License or another license
> permitted under Section 4.4;"
> 
> The text of both require the re-licensing under the originating licence.
> ODbL gives some flexibility in 4.4 so is more flexible than By.
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Rens
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 March 2015 at 16:16, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com
> <mailto:fjmd1a at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     2015-03-27 20:02 GMT+00:00 Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com
>     <mailto:andrewrens at gmail.com>>:
> 
>         Hi
> 
>         I am new to this list although not new to okfn.
> 
>         I am hoping to understand the apparent incompatibility of
>         ODC-By and the ODC-ODbL.
> 
> 
>     They are intended to complement each other much as CC-BY and
>     CC-BY-SA do.
>      
> 
> 
>         As most of you know attribution only software licences such as
>         the BSD's, MIT etc and CC By licence do not require that
>         derivatives should be licensed under the same licence. However
>         the ODC-ODbL has the following:
>         "4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any
>         Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective
>         Database, then You must:
>         a. Do so only under the terms of this License;
> 
>         b. Include a copy of this License or its Uniform Resource
>         Identifier (URI) with the Database or Derivative Database,
>         including both in the Database or Derivative Database and in any
>         relevant documentation"
> 
>         The result is that Derivative Databases must be licensed under
>         the same licence which is effectively a copyleft provision.
> 
> 
>     Yes, precisely. ODC-ODbL is intended to be a copyleft licence, much
>     like CC-BY-SA, though just slightly more strongly copyleft than
>     CC-BY-SA v4.0.
>      
> 
> 
>         But why then have ODC-ODbL?
> 
> 
>     Do you mean, why have ODC-By?
> 
>     I am afraid I am obtusely unable to understand your question.
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Francis Davey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/odc-discuss
> 